Pages

Monday, April 21, 2014

Pseudo-science

Psychologists who study personality disorders frequently make unwarranted and unnecessary value judgments and other normative statements. In this article, Psychologist and "autism expert" Simon Baron-Cohen promotes his new book on empathy and makes what I believe are some unsupportable statements that betray a bias that is wholly inappropriate in a man professing to give an accurate, objective opinion on the role empathy plays in human interactions. Here are some illustrative quotes:

As a scientist I want to understand the factors causing people to treat others as if they are mere objects. So let's substitute the term "evil" with the term "empathy erosion".

Zero degrees of empathy means you have no awareness of how you come across to others, how to interact with others, or how to anticipate their feelings or reactions. It leaves you feeling mystified by why relationships don't work out, and it creates a deep-seated self-centredness.

People said to be "evil" or cruel are simply at one extreme of the empathy spectrum.

Zero degrees of empathy does not strike at random in the population. There are at least three well-defined routes to getting to this end-point: borderline, psychopathic, and borderline personality disorders. I group these as zero-negative because they have nothing positive to recommend them. They are unequivocally bad for the sufferer and for those around them.

Empathy itself is the most valuable resource in our world.

Empathy is like a universal solvent. Any problem immersed in empathy becomes soluble. It is effective as a way of anticipating and resolving interpersonal problems, whether this is a marital conflict, an international conflict, a problem at work, difficulties in a friendship, political deadlocks, a family dispute, or a problem with the neighbour. Unlike the arms industry that costs trillions of dollars to maintain, or the prison service and legal system that cost millions of dollars to keep oiled, empathy is free. And, unlike religion, empathy cannot, by definition, oppress anyone.

Mixed amongst these statements, he cites two extreme examples to justify his conclusions: a BPD wantonly screaming at her kids and an ASPD who bottles a hapless barfly to death for looking at him funny. The odd thing is that although Baron-Cohen acknowledges that there is a spectrum of empathy, he firmly places both the BPD and the ASPD at absolute zero. Interestingly although he is an autism expert he does not mention the relative position of autistics on the scale, presumably because any stories of auties being violent would destroy the symmetry between his zero empathy = evil parallelism. Frankly, this type of hackjob excuse for science sickens me, particularly since I know that the natural consequence of something like this is the masses blindly following it as "truth," self-congratulating themselves while they embark on a modern inquisition ratting out the heretics that dare differ from them in any way. And this guy is worried about religion oppressing people? Doesn't he realize that his pseudo-science is its own religion with zealous adherents ready and waiting to oppress? The hubris of it all is simply astounding.

263 comments:

Clearly the irony of Baron-Cohen stereotyping, objectifying and 'othering' people is lost on him. His depersonalisation of people through reductive, systematic categorisation would be laughable if it were not a tragic injustice to so many. Most people are taught as children that others have feelings so that we can choose to demonstrate compassion (which is, as far as I can tell, what he means by empathy) towards them. Yet compassion is a fluid state dependent on many personal, physical, social, political, and economic factors, not least of which, is what each of us defines as personally worthy of our compassion. Otherwise, there would be no notion of the deserving and undeserving, we would all be as deserving as each other - there would be no racism, sexism, and prejudice. However it is human nature to reserve our compassion, and our mercy, for those we judge as deserving based on our own personal morals and ethics - we are inherently selfish creatures for the purposes of our own survival with limited emotional and physical capacity to give beyond our own little tribe. You don't need to have a conscience to be able to recognise, and manipulate, other people's feelings - in fact I dare say the most masterful psychological manipulators don't :p But then, as Philip Zimbardo's Lucifer Effect shows, you don't have to be conscienceless to engage in sadism either. To my mind compassion is a sort of altruism, which can never be without motive, but an intention to do no harm to others is the motive I prefer. Such catchy junk-science has very grave implications for social justice in my opinion. Anyway, apologies for my dire lack of formatting, but I must away to watch a fairytale now.

It's ME ladies and gentlemen! Give it up for our favourite science defying sociopath. Whom not one, two but more than three scientists have wronged to him. He lives in his own little made up world in which he thinks he is a sociopath, and everything the scientists said that might interact with that opinion of his is "WRONG". I know that noone will believe me, that's because ME's got you eating his bullshit. And you know what guys, that gives him power. Power over you stupid asses. No science is ever good enough for ME. Some day i bet we will see him on TV making rockets. Because ME knows it all |-___^|

SO, what happened on April 28? ME decided the block the anons. Thinking she could force them to sign up?

Then she realized SW got very boring all of a sudden. Then the mistake got fixed.

Is an apology in order, ME? Don't get arrogant. Don't think that people can shift away in a heart beat. You made me check Note' blog and his format seem to be catching up with yours. You keep the anons out and watch the anons flock to Note's.

On April 28 blog the first post came at 6:11 am. Then the first anonymous signed post did not come until 11:35 pm.

Kesu you were that only post yesterday. Was that the first time you tried to post? Did you appreciate the pressure to make you sign up? Would you have chosen to sign up if she kept that rule or would you have said 'heck with it' and leave?

You guys are retarded, you just got on here to question M.E.> whos the one pathetically caught up with sociopath's enough to find a website clearly named SW and then question him defending the people who understand what its like vs. a dog trying to label a rabbit as a broken dog. frustrating, if you dont agree leave the mocking or harsh comments for another website this dampens my mood and makes me dislike people like that. its easy to disagree but thats like adding prejudice.

- I have empathy. I have empathy coming out of my bottom . I am very aware of how I come across to {most} people, I just can’t help it or I have my own shit going on some days and can’t take care of everyone else (my therapist says being able to say this is a big step for me). Fuck this dude.

-Empathy is a pain in the ass.

I think this ‘scientist’ is mixing up Empathy with Altruism. Different things bud.

this scientist calls on empathy for solving world's problems and leaves the burden of problems on empaths. big bull shit.

empaths need to understand the sociopaths just as much if we're suggesting communication of a state the other is in during a relationship (say someone's feelings, or someone's need for finding his true place in the food chain).

everyone has a merit function they are willing to raise. the key is understanding what that function is. it is not empaths vs sociopaths it is winners vs losers. empaths are just as hungry for winning as sociopaths they just have the ability to be a whiny bunch with entitlement and sociopaths manipulative bunch with superiority instilled in their brains.

and, fuck ME. you stop the anons, I would never sign in and say another word here.

empaths need to understand the sociopaths just as much if we're suggesting communication of a state the other is in during a relationship (say someone's feelings, or someone's need for finding his true place in the food chain).

everyone has a merit function they are willing to raise. the key is understanding what that function is. it is not empaths vs sociopaths it is winners vs losers. empaths are just as hungry for winning as sociopaths they just have the ability to be a whiny bunch with entitlement and sociopaths manipulative bunch with superiority instilled in their brains.

and, fuck ME. you stop the anons, I would never sign in and say another word here.

People call things “Evil” because they don’t want to admit that it’s a basic part of human nature. Things that are bad are avoided because it’s not a normative value for a cohesively functional society and therefore suppressed (not entirely unwarranted). Admitting it’s a part of human nature means they have to admit they have capacity for it and are therefore not infallible. They would be forced to face the extent of their own humanity; there might be something not good in them too.

So correct me if I’m wrong but this ‘scientist’ has experience with one BPD patient, one dead celebrity, and one A/P? It certainly doesn’t sound like there was more of an experimental group here. Clearly one person is an exact representation of every person with this trait. What she calls science I think is more aptly called prejudice. Neat.

How exactly do you teach empathy in school? In politics? In business? I’m really curious. One point I rather agree with that wasn’t mentioned directly; having parents that are empathic, supportive, and caring are incredibly important in the development of a child mental health. Environment may not be able to cure some problems, but it can still influence it in a more positive direction.

In early schooling we teach the value of communication, curiosity, questioning, trying to understand each other's point of view.

In business school we teach there are three types of people, risk takers, neutrals and risk averse. After that we teach models that are based on neutrals (as in no emotion, and very attractive to sociopaths).

Haven, since you mentioned school, here I summarize my views. Not all need to buy them.

In law school we teach elimination of all bias (all emotions, right or wrong) and looking at only available facts and coming up with a verdict.

In politics we teach mostly history, how early powerful men manipulated the public to vote the way they wanted, how it does not make any difference whether this or that party is in power but it is the financial institutions that say the final word, again quite attractive to sociopaths.

He's just confusing things. He's talking about anti-social or maladaptive behaviour. You can be what some would consider anti-social and still be empathy-laden. Self-centredness, again, not a measurement of lack of empathy. I guess he's being very simplistic and by doing so, misrepresenting things.

In early schooling I definitely see how empathy can be encouraged. Not taught. I see how it can be encouraged in all venues. Ultimately the choice is up to the person. You can't place a moral/ethical position on someone anymore than you can place an emotional state on someone.

I do agree that in school we are often taught to be emotionally neutral. I don't, however, hold this to be a bad thing. What's good and empathic towards one person, may not be good and empathic towards another. Empathy and emotions are not unidirectional.

It can be conditioned in a child by labelling, and rewarding, behaviour that is other-directed and open-minded - by modelling it and discussing it with them in age-appropriate art, literature, and life so that it is engaging. What does it feel like to be sad / glad / afraid / worried / surprised, little one? How do you think the character in the book felt when no one wanted to play with her? How do you think your friend felt when you took his toys off him? What is caring? Who can show caring? How does caring take place? How can each of us show caring in class, in school, in our family? How could you show caring? How could mummy show caring? Your friend looks sad because she's hurt her knee do you think a hug from you might make her feel better? And so on. Praising them also lets them know that doing good deeds can feel good intrinsically - and regularly exposing them to a wide variety of people from all walks of life through art, literature, and life builds tolerance of difference. Unfortunately if parents are closed-minded, self-directed, driven extrinsically, and favour extrinsic rewards their children are more likely to as well. It's not the job of politicians or businessmen to teach compassion – it's the job of parents and then educators.

Compared to when I was very young competition is valued much more highly than caring is by parents as is the value of extrinsic rewards - which is not a breeding ground for caring, compassion, or whatever you want to call the actions that arise from alturistic empathy. Our society doesn't value it, because capitalism more than ever doesn't, and what else is school but preparation for being a worker bee?

He initially defines empathy as "when we suspend our single-minded focus of attention and adopt a double-minded focus of attention". Then adds "Empathy is our ability to identify what someone is thinking of feeling and to respond to their thoughts and feelings with an appropriate emotion".

He correctly identifies two aspects of empathy (identify and respond) but still constantly presents a 1-dimensional view of empathy, giving seven levels: 0 - 6. He briefly admits people can lack one and not the other, then completely forgets this fact for the rest of the book.

He goes to the furthest extremes with each example, without pointing out those are the extremes. He briefly alludes to the "snake in a suit" concept but never goes into it.

Then he labels autism as being "Zero-Positive" and goes on a chapter-long rant about how wonderful autistic people are -.-

All in all, this book is biased and lacks even a semblance of validity or reliability.

"Empathy is like a universal solvent. Any problem immersed in empathy becomes soluble. It is effective as a way of anticipating and resolving interpersonal problems.... And, unlike religion, empathy cannot, by definition, oppress anyone."

If one accepts the concept that there are degrees of sociopathy, then it would make sense that there are degrees of empathy. I've certainly observed empaths who don't take other people's perspectives into view. Do people need to work on taking the time to see situations from the other person's vantage point? Sure, that would help solve *all* *sorts* of problems and cure much of the drama in individuals lives.

But some people are addicted to the drama & the problems and are too stupid/self-delusional to bother learning empathy. And I'm defining "empathy" as understanding the other person's point of view and motivations and having compassion inform one's actions. Frankly, sociopaths are probably better at grasping other people's point of view & motivations than your average person. Unfortunately, most people expect both parts to go hand-in-hand because of the early childhood brainwashing of "other people have feelings, too." Finding out that a person can understand & not care is more shocking that finding out a person doesn't understand at all but cares deeply.

@Anon... I still hold that all of these things are only encouragement towards empathy. It’s not empathy teaching, it’s behavior modification and response/pattern recognition. If A, then B. This can be taught. If you define empathy as intellectual identification you can teach empathy to that extent. You can draw comparisons between what you’ve programmed a child to recognize in themselves with the experience of what has happened to another. You can’t teach the actually feeling for another person though. That’s either there or it’s not.

Just this last week my therapist did that, ‘If you were a mother, how would you demonstrate caring?’ thing. I recognize the appropriate responses, I actually do these things with a friend’s kid, but that doesn’t create the emotional instilment. I’m a very bad example, though as this post refers to empathy impaired PDs maybe I qualify.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe it is crucial in a child’s development to praise and encourage appropriately. Teaching right behavior and mindfulness are necessary and valuable skills to know in order to function ‘appropriately’ in the world.

I also agree that it’s the job of parents and educators to provide a healthy, happy environment for their children. Some of empathy is nature though, not just nurture.

"Finding out that a person can understand & not care is more shocking that finding out a person doesn't understand at all but cares deeply."

I beg to question this statement.

It is more hurtful (what's with the use of the word shocking?) to be damaged by a non-understanding empath than a noncaring sociopath. Low functioning empath as a parent will make you feel more miserable than an unemotional (plus uninterested in harming his child) sociopath parent.

It's the malignant narcs with empathy of sorts that one should fear as parents.

Instead of complaining that psychopaths can in fact feel empathy or care, why don't you write a letter to Bob Hare, with hard questions. Afraid your little socio bubble will be popped? The truth is a bitch isn't it?

i once rammed a car into a bus full of loosers in a busy street made in morning rush hour made all the loosers late for there looser jobs and walked a way limping a bit like in a movie lol wish it had sparked a fire ball and exploded but

Traditionally it is they who come closest, whereas Borderliners actually can have both periods where they experience no empathy and periods where they experience strong, or deep, empathy.

Well, you probably know how my view is on the whole field of psychology/psychiatry. I don't see it as a science in the same sense as classical, empirical science. It is more a way of categorizing people according to present standards. I see it everyday when I do research on psychopathy.

This is also my reason for having an interest in understanding how psychology/psychiatry research see us, because their research and expert statements, their work as presented in books and other resources, reflect how the majority of people at present understand their world, and therefore us (or more precisely: Me, Zhawq).

At least he understands it's 'one end of a bell curve'.

I wonder if he also understands that if we take one end away of the bell curve, there will be somebody else who takes over our position, and they will become to new 'evil' extreme.

They will become the next labeled 'zero empathy'.

And no, that is not a false allegation, because when it is possible to deem us 'evil' because of a 'zero empathy' we do not even encompass - since no group is so completely absolute - then obviously there can be others. It's a matter of definition, and l lines blend.

When do someone have 'zero empathy', and when is he merely close to that?

And if people find it hard to imagine that our standards can change and become tighter or wider, looser, then all we need to do is look at f.ex. The Nazi period (which Baron-Cohen's own back ground is linked to, btw - he's Jewish), or our own presence where people can view levels of violence that would have been unimaginable two decades ago.

And Baron-Cohen does it too:

They have nothing positive to recommend them

Obviously he would be aware that there's very little material on research done with psychopaths and sociopaths who aren't incarcerated, wherefore we only have the data that applies to them.

Another thing I see again and again is the very same kind of thing they accuse us of doing: Turning tables so that everything fits their stereotype picture of us.

It's the same old story: They need us, but sadly not always for something good. In this case it's abuse if anything.

@Zhawq ... I agree. I still can't figure out why we're (BPD) grouped in the same category and the 'empathy impaired'. I mean, yeah we have emotive issues, but we're clearly not emotionless.

I like your comment on removing the current end of the bellcurve. People are villified by all others because they're at the extreme, but were that group to no longer exist, that position would just be fulfilled by a different group. People need a scapegoat to feel good about themselves.

"This is also my reason for having an interest in understanding how psychology/psychiatry research see us, because their research and expert statements, their work as presented in books and other resources, reflect how the majority of people at present understand their world, and therefore us (or more precisely: Me, Zhawq)."

Per hyraddle: "It is more hurtful (what's with the use of the word shocking?) to be damaged by a non-understanding empath than a noncaring sociopath. Low functioning empath as a parent will make you feel more miserable than an unemotional (plus uninterested in harming his child) sociopath parent."

Yes, non-understanding empaths can do more damage than noncaring sociopaths. In my experience, it's much easier to find the former, too. Most people don't bother examining their own feelings & what triggers them, never mind looking at someone else & trying to figure out what might be making them feel & act the way they do. I was trained in the theater to do both--we called them "acting exercises." One of the other things the theater trained me to do was to work as part of a team to create successful resolution--a play can be written full of discourse, but a cast & crew full of discourse is a disaster to be avoided at all costs.

I used the word "shocking" because it was a surprise to discover that someone could perform the "acting exercises" and use that knowledge to create division & discourse. That concept had not occurred to me, being an empath who was taught to use understanding to bring joy & accord. It was a hurtful surprise, but while the hurt has faded, the surprise has not because the concept is still relatively novel.

There is fire in the hole today. I told you ME is building an army. (the secret mission is to change the stigma of the empathically challenged.

The Red One wrote "But some people are addicted to the drama & the problems and are too stupid/self-delusional to bother learning empathy. And I'm defining "empathy" as understanding the other person's point of view and motivations and having compassion inform one's actions. Frankly, sociopaths are probably better at grasping other people's point of view & motivations than your average person."

Now this is profound. The trick is how does one further the longterm growth of self, family, clan or nation is an artform. The entrapment of "personal" drama, blame and anger can be debilitating.

A empathically "eroded" mind, can see the bigger picture without the trip ups. The next step is to align one's self with a mutually beneficial motivation stance. This is the case of having too much empathy can be equally as harmful as in a "dogmatic emotional imprisonment."

Just look at all the CLEAR THINKING going on today.

The Dali Lama's presence is the kind of compassion which is not tripped up. And he has a viscous enemy to push up against in the Chinese. His form of empathy is an unique kind of power. His leadership motivations are brilliant, mutually beneficial and equally as combative as a strategy.

P.S. Beautifully stated Hyraddle, good eye. Yes its the core to parenting, thank you ;-).

The S is better equipped for the cognitive level of empathy (recognition of another's perspective). Perceptually, your flexibility can yield a broader index of a foreign perspective. You are sufficiently well informed of the mechanics of emotion to wield substantial influence. As GI JOE has instructed us, "Knowing is half the battle." With respect to empathy, emotion is the dominant criteria and so, perhaps (for those who actually believe in evil) the S is half empty. It is strength to see what is, beyond the pollutant of emotion.

Social sciences are something of a fugue. A melody appears, and is embraced by several instruments in succession. A counterpoint will be established. The elements, consonant and dissonant, will play. Where many instruments have joined and melodies intersect, a social scientist will sample the mix and report on what he thought he heard. It is always a game of telephone. Hearsay, inadmissible in court. While a sommelier might seem to have a qualitative skill, in actuality her nose is foremost for chemistry. Until our own molecules, their history, and the trading of their component parts is well understood social sciences will be an entirely, speculative enterprise. Predictive models, at best.

I get the relevance of junk science to cultural mores. The (paranoid) expectation of persecution, the incipient mob is more complicated because it occurs at a transept. We'd be shortsighted as a species to weed out resilient adaptations...That said, we humans do genetically modify our food, without testing the ramifications several generations into the population so, why not genetically modify our predators?

I had once thought to shelter you from the storm. I imagined ushering not only an S, but his partner and descendants, to safe harbor in an anticipation of a coming apocalype. That is to say: In my fantasies, I did not choose save a favorite; I harbored a tribe. I do value what you offer and would have ensured that it continued in the population. I am however, well acquainted with the S propensity to gnaw at the hand that feeds. It is altruism better defined a particularly nasty subset of Masochism. That's your play: Catch me in the throes of compassion, or it is (with deference to my own survival) Off with Your Head; I suppose it is that paradox, which makes plain the critical value of empathy.

Incidentally, it was in a tango with an S, not so unlike you Red One, where I got the door prize, of empathy. The S has my gratitude & my reflexive thanks. Still, it is a conceit to think that a seat on the Underground Railroad would ultimately be within our purview. And here I am, out of the web.

Ok is it empathy if I know what you are feeling but I don't give a shit? Is it empathy if I have no idea what you are feeling but I care deeply? I intellectualize things so I'm obviously the first example of mine. I like how this guy makes it seem like there is no place for the ones who lack empathy. So stupid. Psychiatry is full of hacks. I can't say how many(Actually it was probably like 6-10) psychiatrist's offices I was pulled into as a child with my mother saying something was wrong with me. Each one released me inside a month. I didn't care to be there. I had better things to do and they had no capability to see through the image of me I gave them. Now does that mean they lack empathy because they couldn't tell what I was feeling? I don't care what some douchebag writes about. Just another Shepard leading his flock astray.

BTW I think anon flock just made me want to make an account so I don't have to be a part of the flock.

I just saw spidey first post. Plus one to you guy. The entire sociopaths can see what other people are thinking easier then others is true for me at least. I'm so capable of it at times that it comes off as mind reading to people. I can put their thoughts into words and articulate them better then they themselves are capable of. It's also where my manipulative abilities come from. I think my ability to see through others eyes does comes from the flexible personality. I think when you've played a 100 different roles you can see when people are a role that you have played before. You know how they are going to act in the situation even what is going through their head. Why? Simply becaused you played that roll, you rehearsed those lines, you wore those clothes. The only difference between us and the people who actually inhabit that role or personality is that it is all a costume for us.

Also from what I've seen so far the general idea of empathy is the ability to identify and act upon the feelings of other in a sympathetic way. I think this wrong or more or less not fully constructed. I'm fully capable of do that. I'm just not compelled to do it. I think the compulsion to do the sympathetic action is empathy. If you lack the compulsion or urge to do the sympathetic response then you lack empathy even if you can tell what the other person is feeling.

Same. They always told me I am who I'm not, and not who I am, too. After a while I became intrigued by what they would project onto me next. The psychologists I meet in my personal life always intrigue me because they talk to me like I'm one of them – middle-class, with matching morals, and privileges. Many of them think they're better than their clients, and many are stunned by their client's self-awareness no matter what their label, as if they're not human at all. I've had psychologists talk to me casually about people like me in different psychosocial capacities, without realising it, and they’ve made all sorts of disquieting comments. I've also noticed that too many of them believe that no matter what label you've been given you have to be middle-class to be capable of demonstrating any insight into your condition at all – if you're not middle-class any amount of personal awareness at all is deemed 'astonishing.' I've only had one psychologist in a personal capacity assess correctly who I am, unprompted, but he was training to be a neuroscientist and I hadn't noticed that he'd been testing me - I thought he wanted to be my friend. Oops. The last psychologist I saw in her professional capacity was a complete hack, but, as I'm hoping to one day help people oppressed by society practically I do think it's very important to have experience of both sides of the psychology cult while learning as much about their dominant ideologies as possible.

"I think the compulsion to do the sympathetic action is empathy. If you lack the compulsion or urge to do the sympathetic response then you lack empathy even if you can tell what the other person is feeling."

notme, i swear it was not a glitch. each time i tried to post it sent me to the sign in page. just look at the posts, no anons, except kesu, the lucky son of a gun, he came into the scene after ME released the freaking controls.

grrr... i was so mad. i had a great story to tell and i just could not. now, i'm not telling.

kesu, you not be mad at me, you silly goose. but, go sign in anyway, so we can write directly to you if we need to. ME may cut us off again for all that I know. and nobody believes me. oh, what was that, cassandra.. yeah, i am a cassandra anon too.

kesu, your not caring is bullshit. you are just overly caring about winning.

plus, you had the misfortune of a stupid mother who thought those psychologists are smarter than you. you had higher iq than those. your mother must have had spoiled you by throwing money at you. did she buy your fast car too?

the more i read the more i realize it was a blessing to have dumb and poor parents. i figured that by the time i was 10 and learned to get everything i wanted on my own. they had no sense of how to screw me up as badly as the rich, controlling, bullshit parents. the thought that my parents would have money to spend on psychology is so far off. we were worried about eating banana once in a while.

Negative flock of the fake. I do care about winning. I just don't care if it causes you pain. My mother is a lot of things but stupid has never been one of them. She is a MENSA and was tested by the military. What she maybe is naive. The fact that I always felt a disconnect with her and was distant emotionally caused her a tremendous amount of grief. She has always been extremely family oriented and wanted a family. I was fiercely independent as a child and bright. She as a single mother wanted that deep bond with me. However it was to no avail. I wanted little to do with the woman I resented for so many things. When she married I distanced further and became more or less a ghost in the house. I would come and go as I pleased and there was nothing any of them could do to stop me. It wasn't for lack of trying either. I always kept everyone in the dark about where I was going what I was doing and when I would be back. I was still forced into some of the normal mandatory work that goes with childhood. However, I never asked for money that I didn't work for. Which is strange for an S I know. To me it was part of the battle superiority. The less I took the more evident that it was that I didn't need them and the less bargaining chips they had on the table. Eventually it got to the point where the chips were in my favor and I could guilt trip them into leaving me alone. They didn't have much money and it is hard to get blood from a turnip. In truth I never wanted anything to do with them as a child. They were pathetically common and the man my mother wed was pathetically stupid and inept. In my mind I was meant for greater things then these common people could ever offer.

On a side note about my mother and her commonness. Like I mentioned before she is a MENSA. One of the things that I resented about her so much was that she never applied her intellect to anything. She wanted a family and a nice little house that could comfortably hold the family. She achieved those things over time. It was the fact though that she could have gained so much so easily if she had just pressed forward. She had the contacts the looks the personality. She wasn't sheepish or meek. She just wanted simple things. Never more.

Dear Kesu, your mother's desire for the simple is your hidden wealth because it balances your ambition. And this opposition of what you call common allows you to strive for such ambition so fiercely. Plus she is the perfect irritant for your sand which strives to be a pearl. Think about that one on Mother's day, and thank her for her genetic intelligence and the edge its gives you to fulfil your passions.

thank you soulful. this is what i don't understand about the intelligent people. how can't they appreciate the similarity between seeking virtue and power? how can they not understand teh true power lies in strength of the self and that picking on others is only a grandiose attempt to play with the weak. only changing yourself is the big game out there. find your own fucking balance on the spectrum of power and virtue, seeking either end is still pursuing what is easy. find your personal balance, and stop worrying about others' sense of empath/sociopath/vurtue/power.... all bullshit. where are you? are you really at your best game?

At first, I thought this was a joke article (like from The Onion) but then I realized this guy is Sacha's cousin, not Sacha himself (the comedian).

As ME's twitter stated today, most sociopaths have a battle handle on why people do what they do than the average Joe. Maybe we don't feel why, but isn't understanding emotions from a logical point of view a type of cognitive empathy?

it is a strength, whichever way you look at it. i honestly think this understanding is not a result of empath or sociopath but sheer intelligence. too many things are being mixed together here. interaction effects are overlooked. intelligent socios started generalizing and projecting their intelligence to nonintelligence socios.

intelligence socios are the ones who need bullying, or physical success the least. it is not at all in their interest to do that.

Off topic:I enjoy the company of powerful men, and I have the undeniable pleasure of being intimately involved with both a sociopath and a psychopath. They ABHOR each other, but they treat me like a princess. My relationships with these fellows have been going on for several years now, and I can't help but wonder if I am as special as my psychopath tells me I am or if he's full of bologna and if all of a sudden he will "ruin" me. He has told me over the years about women he has used and "discarded." He said I am not like them. I'm sure he keeps secrets from me, but he tells me a lot of things that he probably shouldn't...incriminating,violent details about his escapades. He calls me his "confidant." We talk about his lack of empathy...actually, we talk about almost everything. Just knowing that my psychopath is a part of this world makes me get up with a smile every day. My sociopath, on the other hand, is much more guarded when speaking about himself. He has opened up lately, and has expressed a desire to live together. If anyone in the world treats me better than my psycho, it is my socio. My questions, should anyone want to answer are: how long will a "p" or an "s" play games before the "ruining" that I have heard about takes place? Also, I acknowledge that I am playing with fire with these two. Any predictions on what would happen if I were to walk away from one or both of them? - Chloe

Dear Chloe:You are the dream girl. You have trained them well, now you should train them to join me in bed simultaneously and teach them how to have intercourse with each other taking turns while you sit in your queen's chair and wait for turn to be sucked off simultaneously on both ends of yours.

Chloe, I doubt they are psychopaths or a sociopath (is there a difference?) you mentioned you have known them for years, you would have witnessed many many violent tantrums and devaluation by now. The only people we keep close is ourselves, sorry hunnie.

"kesu, you are only as valuable as what you have managed to build not how you stayed around and bitched about her not reaching her intellectual potential."

I can agree with this wholeheartedly. As for what I've built well I have built on top of what others began. More then likely you know someone who has a product of mine if not you yourself.

"so kesu, you resented your mother for many things."

Well you hit some of them. Growing up with a single parent of course there was a disappointment with not having a father, they have less disposable income, much of their time is spent doing other things, specially when they are young. The first part of my life(6 monthes to 4 years old) was spent under the care of my grandparents until the death of my grandfather. We moved with my grandmother and then eventually we moved away from her too. I called my grandmother mother and my mother by her first name. So taking me away from the person I deemed my mother gave me a further resentment. When she married she became pregnant and gave birth to another child which further diverted her attention from me which was already at a minimal during my tender years. I also never felt protected by her. Many cruelties fell upon me while I was young and she seemed to ignore them. She calls me at times and cries about how bad of a mother she was to me. I use to press the point further enjoying her tears. However with time I came to understand that these calls gave her a type of relief. So I stopped having them.

As far as me feeling conflicted about my mother. Well I am. Who isn't conflicted about their parents though? I am proud of her genetic history. It links my family to many other families of greatness including kings of England and Scotland if one goes back far enough. AS far as forgiveness goes... I gave up caring about all that after I left my teens.

"kesu used to ask people why they are here. I'm waiting for him to ask me the same question."

You won't get that question. You lack any notable intellect. You are boring. Your views are simplistic and poorly thought out. There also seems to be a multitude(Or you have a very flippant personality) of you under the same name without a single one of them showing any sign of anything worthy of questioning. You also seem to have made an idol out of Ukan. People who make idols are even further below my radar of interest. You want to become that person. How boring. Find your own path and walk. It is fine improving what others have started but if you model yourself after someone else you inevitably come up short of that person.

On a final note I would never denounce something I actually said. I'm far too proud of me.

You don't write like Adam, but no matter. Actually, I have witnessed many a violent outburst, especially from "P." I'm naive, certainly, and of course can be lied to or manipulated, but I don't put up with devaluation. I told them both, early in our relationships the manner in which I must be spoken to as well as treated. No yelling (at me) is allowed. When "P" feels violent, he knows enough to leave. "S" is the master of the scathing remark, but I call him on it. Oh, and they were both diagnosed. No doubt about that. I have also read that there is no difference between S and P, but my "P" says otherwise. So does the poster named Zhawq...Anyway, thanks for your input, Adam.

you had an absent mother by the way. your first six years are the most important and 2/3 of that she was not there. but still... grow up. see why she had to be absent, see how young she was. plus, she is just like you, not much caring of a child. no need to project her on other women.

for as dumb as you think of me, you sure said a lot about you today, except the car.

"your first six years are the most important and 2/3 of that she was not there. but still... grow up."

I did move on you moron. Like I said I stopped caring about all that after my teens.

"see why she had to be absent, see how young she was."

I understand perfectly why. Just isn't an excuse.

"plus, she is just like you, not much caring of a child. no need to project her on other women."

She gave my sibling adequate attention. Like I said she is a very caring and loving woman. She was just a poor parent to me. It was never her intent to be that. I know these things. Stop acting like you have some type of revelation to show me in your words. More then likely any ideas you are battling with today I was already surpassing at the age of 9.

"Adam" - I am average looking. I am more interested in your opinion on what might happen if I were to decide to leave one or both of them than discussing why they are around in the first place. From your own experience, what did you do if/when a girlfriend broke things off with you?

To my admirer - I would LOVE to have them both at once. "S" will not play those games. Too bad for me :(

Why do you want to break things off? What's your defining difference between a psychopath and a sociopath? What kind of scathing remarks does he make? What kind of violent abuse does he attempt? How do you stop it?

I never said I resolved I said I stopped caring. Stop putting words in my mouth. How I treat women has nothing to do with my mother. Unless you wish to talk about it in a psychology sense. I don't have some rage filled aggression towards women. If they push me that is their fault. I just suffer no fools. Also it wasn't my grandmother who died. Do you even read or are you in to busy of a rush to write your next manifesto of retardation? It was my grandfather. It happened when I was 4. I was the one who found his body. It is my first memory.

@Chloe just make sure that both ends don't get played against the middle. If they really are both obsessive about you then good luck with leaving that.

However I find it hard to believe that you keep them under control. Most of us here would never let someone dictate how we act. So what truly stops your P from getting pissed at you grabbing a knife and cutting your limb from limb. Not saying that is what ever P does. What really stops your S from brow beating you until you cry and ball up in the fetal position? I would never let any woman tell me I can't do something. Telling me no would most certainly make me do it.

@Chloe It depends on a lot of things, who you are, does your family have a reputation or are they push-overs that can be controlled, what are you capable of etc, the best thing to do would be to tell the police, narcissists and psychopaths aren't usually stalkers unless they think they have complete power over you, if you make it hard for them they will move on, scare them.

I usually win partners back with promises that I have turned over a new page, but of course I'm laughing inside at them while I'm saying this. We don't care about you though, you are just there to clean after us, give money or stroke our ego, we go into relationships thinking of what you can do for us.

UKan, I really don't want to leave either one of them. I adore them both, but I am concerned about the possibility of one or both of them "turning" on me. Lions and wolves are beautiful, majestic creatures, but they bite. Hard. And we don't keep them as pets for a reason. I'm no expert, and I understand there is some debate about whether or not there is a difference between S and P. I used the wording S & P to differentiate between the two. S goes for the verbal assault, and I stop him in his tracks and call him on it. When he pulls that kind of thing, and he then will find himself without dinner. He enjoys it when I wait on him and make his meals. Only once did he threaten me with physical violence. I told him if anything happened to me that "P" would kill him. "P" would kill him...he has said he would kill for me before. This should probably disturb me, but it does not. "P", on the other hand, doesn't go for the verbal assault, but he is very quick to anger and will get physical with others. He is dangerous, and he knows it. When he gets enraged, if he is with me, he will tell me he needs to leave, and he leaves quickly. I don't control him; he controls himself around me.

S & P aren't know for their self control, or for their ability to stop once they start. I gotta say Adam is right on this. I don't see any reason for either to stop. The fact that they share you is amazing enough to me. Then again significant others are toys to me. In this aspect I'm a very selfish child. No one is allowed to touch my toys without my permission. They are mine and I don't like to share them. I won't let go of them until they are either completely broken or I'm bored of them. So what consequence could you possibly have that you hang over their head that they would stop. I can't imagine that your company is enough to stop them from doing what should be a part of their natural character.

@Chloe I don't know, you are either making up stories or you are doing everything in the relationship properly, but is there a properly? I still find it extremely hard to believe that neither of them abused you, normal men abuse and they aren't even psychopaths! But with psychopaths the abuse is constant, an emotional meat grinder. By the time you have been devalued, you are as important as garbage, assuming he is a psychopath/narc.

During the night of June 23, 1993, John Wayne Bobbitt arrived at the couple's apartment in Manassas, Virginia, highly intoxicated after a night of partying. According to testimony given by Lorena Bobbitt in a 1994 court hearing, he then raped her. (In 1994 he was tried for and acquitted of spousal rape, prosecuted by the same district attorney who prosecuted Lorena for attacking her husband.) Afterwards, Lorena Bobbitt got out of bed and went to the kitchen for a drink of water. According to an article in the National Women's Studies Association Journal, while in the kitchen she noticed a carving knife on the counter and "memories of past domestic abuses raced through her head." Grabbing the knife, Lorena Bobbitt entered the bedroom where John was sleeping and proceeded to cut off almost half of his penis.[1]After assaulting her husband, Lorena left the apartment with the severed penis, drove a short while, then rolled down the car window and threw the penis into a field. Realizing the severity of the incident, she stopped and called 911. After an exhaustive search, the penis was located, packed in ice, and taken to the hospital where John Bobbitt was being treated.The penis was re-attached by Drs. James T. Sehn and David Berman during a nine-and-a-half-hour operation.[2]

Thanks, guys, for your responses. I think the only advantage (and I hesitate to call it that) that I have in this situation is that I am aware that I am not dealing with the average-Joe type of guys. It's harder to manipulate someone who is aware that he is dealing with a master manipulator than someone oblivious to the facts. Furthermore, I am manipulative, too. It's an ugly habit and my dirty little secret, but the bottom line is that I am simply *bad.* I think nothing of doing bad things to get what I want; the ends justify the means. I wont bore you with examples, but I think their attraction to my inherent "badness" is what keeps 'em coming back for more Chloe. Anyway, I thank you guys for your responses. You are correct in saying that they lack restraint, and that is the unsettling part...I have some thinking to do.

new in action, baby, that's all... you know, you just hang around for a while, see the weaknesses, the socio stuff, the masks, all the beautiful education provided by ME, and the wanna be's, the poets, and the psychos

see how well tik is trained by the socios... she thinks the insults are personal while kesu refers to women as his toys, his assets.

tik, what are you, deeply codependent? does it occur to you that you may have some rights? some confidence? some resistance to the position you are in? any person left in you, or you are reduced to the cunt they keep calling women on this blog?

There is no difference between the two terms if we are going off the standard and not a few peoples personal opinions. The terms have changed over time: Moral imbecile, psychopath, sociopath, etc. In reality it is what it is.If you are waiting on someone you are not in control. I find it odd you have a dillusion of having it. Your cooking is a bargaining chip? I think not.I am pretty surprised these two revolve around you. I don't like anyone tampering with what's mine. Especially if someone is cooking and waiting on me. What's keeping them around? Do you live with one?

To the precious l'non, addressed to me - "your views are no more unique, is that bothering you a bit?"

Perhaps this was meant to provoke. No bother, just I am fairly private and I keep the real juice to myself. I also have no problem with the part of me which is common and repetitious. So thank you, much graitude and fuck off.

Strange but true,Partied at a club one time with one of Wayne Bobbitt's lovers. She was quite attached to his infamous celebrity notoriety. What a strange thing to be proud of. She was only captivating to me because she wouldn't stop talking about his penis. No wonder I forgot her name.

please change your name to thick, will suit you better. kesu definitely trained you well, you ask the same question... everyone else already has an opinion, sweetheart.. you tell us why you are here? are yo under the impression that you should be here only to nod your head when kesu explains how great toys women make? are you?

I had been annoyed with the way women are so accepting of the shit men are so proud of generalizing on men on this blog.

I was able to get only one person (below) ask the question I wanted to hear. I'll take one, but the rest of you, keep an eye on the future statements, don't let women be put down even in words and even in blogs, unless it is the story of one particular woman who really did deserve the treatment.

Say something when men generalize such as 'women are my toys,' because if you don't it is the same as your thinking that. You should never think that. You all should know better than that.

It is way past my bed time. Sweet dreams to all of you.

Anonymous said...why are women so looked down upon on sw?April 29, 2011 5:44 PM

"Mad Monk" Rasputin was castrated and he was renowned for his sexual prowess. Rumors floated about that his penis was extraordinarily large, and after his apparent sexual mutilation a bizarre story surfaced as to what ultimately became of his genitals.

Supposedly, the severed penis of Rasputin was found by a maid at his murder site, who kept it. In the 1920s, it ended up in the hands of a group of Russian women who had moved to Paris, who revered it as a sexual fertility charm. Eventually Marie, Rasputin’s daughter, learned of the women and demanded that the penis be returned to her. She kept it throughout her life with a collection of Rasputin artifacts until her death in 1977.

After Marie’s death, a number of her items were sold, including a velvet pouch with some of her personal manuscripts. The man, who bought this package, Michael Augustine, found the penis tucked away inside the pouch as well. He attempted to auction off the item, but officials soon realized that the dried-out “penis” was not a penis at all – it was a sea cucumber. Had the real penis been switched at some point? Were the women in Paris worshiping the sea cucumber and not a real penis all along? That one is left a mystery.

However, in 2004, a man named Igor Knyazkin, a researcher at the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, opened an erotica museum in St. Petersburg. On display there are a number of Rasputin’s personal letters… and his preserved, 12-inch (or 30cm) penis. Knyazkin claims to have purchased the penis from an anonymous French collector of obscure artifacts, and says that merely looking at the penis can cure men of impotency.

women are my toys and sex is sport. i use my wife as a foot rest while i'm sitting around with my buddies, drinking beers, cracking sexist jokes and watching football. women don't have the mental capacity to understand the rules of football, so i don't try to explain.

Get off your pedestal. Nobody gives a shit about anyone's rights here. If you are a women or a man it doesnt matter. If you want respect earn it, otherwise you're just a pathetic whore waiting to be walked on. Nobody is going to look out for sexist comments here you fucking cunt.

Wow someone is certainly on a rant about this woman stuff. I love how my comment about "Then again significant others are toys to me." became women are my toys. If I had a male significant other it would be the same way.

However this is just to funny to stop.

As to the question of why women are looked down upon on SW... They aren't. It is just most posters are male and Medusa is a bull dike so she is almost male. Most relationships will spring from them being males and the mass majority of the population that is straight, thus females. In turn the one in a relationship with them gets a lot of abuse. I've never seen any direct hate mongering for women on this blog except maybe from Adam.

I look at all these positive outgoing people and I can't stand them, I suppose I'm outgoing in a snarky sort of way but I think these people are faking it, these overly narcissistic twitter users disgust me, how dare they talk endlessly about themselves, I hate how young people are striving for the common good and 'open mindedness' I want to opress them, I want to kill all goodness in them or put them in death camps, how dare they not know me.

Somewhere great. Moving, actually. Geographically, financially, and higher status-wise a couple months down the road. It pays to know the right people, and to utilize your expertise with them.

It pays a lot.

The funny thing is, it wasn't a matter of being a cutthroat bastard, or being magnanimous with the right folks. It was just about me being me around the right people, and apparently it made a hell of an impression.

Now i just need to make sure I don't fuck it up between now and then, and I'll be golden. This is one of those early retirement/set for life gigs in a job field I actually enjoy that most people in corporations never get a shot at. It's one of the few times I've really anticipated something, and I'm surprisingly excited.

Featured comment

Of course, my default is still to intuitively analyze every outcome and situation and achieve the best result, but it's more interesting to let people remain a variable and go in their own direction, rather than nudging them in the direction I prefer. Interacting with people WITHOUT trying to control them is a new paradigm for me.